Italy v Australia, Sunday Nov 10 2013, Stadio Olimpico

[Ash]

Every back except Kuiridriani kicked at least twice last night.
Too many cooks?

Not sure, but at times England seemed more interested at running the ball back at us than we did at them. This includes times that we were chasing the game.

Bizarro world.

To'omua had some good up and unders, but at times it'd be nice to see our backs working harder to get behind the ball so Folau and To'omua and co don't see kicking it back as a first option - two to three passes across field then decide if we have the numbers or if a kick is the right option. Our forwards and backs just don't seem to be working hard enough to give options behind the ball.

 

[RoffsChoice]

All the players kicking like that makes me think it was part of the plan. We saw against South Africa in Cape Town that McKenzie's idea of a percentage game is to kick it every time you have it, maybe it was just more of the same?

 

[Richo]

Not sure, but at times England seemed more interested at running the ball back at us than we did at them. This includes times that we were chasing the game.

Bizarro world.

And the context for many of our kicks was odd. We'd run the ball from the 22, but then kick when we got it at the 40. Our capacity to transfer pressure was limited.

 

[Bardon]

I noticed that too and commented on it to my dad at while watching. Australia seemed to start most of the kicking contests and invariably ended up on the wrong end of the result.

 

[Ash]

And the context for many of our kicks was odd. We'd run the ball from the 22, but then kick when we got it at the 40. Our capacity to transfer pressure was limited.

Indeed, I find it fustrating to kick away so much ball around the 40m - 50m part of the field. Ultimately we either gifted them ball or field position. Most of the time the guy who received the ball kicked it back.

I can only assume it was a tactic. I hope we don't see it again on this tour.

 

[en_force_er]

I think an option that seriously needs to be considered in Folau at wing and Lelo at 15.

I'd argue, in the Aussie backline from 10-15 you don't get given a position, you get given attacking responsibilities and defensive responsibilities.

For example, how often does AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) defend at wing? Not ever I'd say. So, by this logic you'd still see plenty of Izzy running it back from 15, just not always.

Naming Lelo at 15 gets him Wallaby gametime, which he not only needs but I'd say deserves. With Lelo at 15 it opens up some crossfield kicks to Folau on the wing, which work nicely when done well, and it opens up Folau to be the key chasers on long kicks (and we all know how good he is at that).

TL;DR - If we mixed up our roles in defense of who drops back for kicks, and were as liberal as we already are with our attacking backline roles off set plays, then I believe Lilo at 15 and Folau on the wing would not only be better for development but a stronger combination full stop.

 

[Braveheart81]

If we're going to move Folau to the wing, surely Foley gets a crack at the 15 jersey before Leali'ifano.

Foley has played a lot more rugby there and is currently the backup 15 in the team.

I hope Link makes plenty of changes this week. Italy was always the game where more of the wider squad should get a run and after that performance, very few of the team against England made a great case that they should keep their spots.

 

[en_force_er]

If we're going to move Folau to the wing, surely Foley gets a crack at the 15 jersey before Leali'ifano.

Foley has played a lot more rugby there and is currently the backup 15 in the team.

I hope Link makes plenty of changes this week. Italy was always the game where more of the wider squad should get a run and after that performance, very few of the team against England made a great case that they should keep their spots.

Foley played 1 Super Rugby season there but Lelo has play plenty of Super Rugby games there over a couple of years of Super Rugby and an ITM Cup season.

I'd say it's reasonably equal, but I agree with your point and I wouldn't be fussed to see Foley wear 15.

 

[Brumby Runner]

I still don't understand how or why people would select Timani, the guy is a passenger most of the game. He can put on a big hit, but carrying he doesn't use his weight, and he slipped or missed more tackles than he made from my viewing. Useless in the lineout as well. Make him get the bread and butter of his position (lineout, rucks) at provincial level before letting him go close to the national team again.

With Simmons out, I'd start Douglas with Horwill. Fardy is likely out, so that means Mowen at 6, McCalman at 8. I'd be tempted to give Hooper a rest and put Gill at 7 with Hooper on the bench. Sadly, this means that Timani makes the bench, unless you want to carry Dennis as the spare lock.

I'd also rotate the props, at the very least start Kepu over Alexander, but also Robinson over Slipper.

I'd like to drop Genia, but I'd pick Phipps if that were the case. White just kicks too much. The only other change in the backline I'd make is Tomane for Cummins.

One thing: too much aimless kicking. Folau and To'omua had good games otherwise, but they kicked too much and too often let them English return with interest. Genia falls in here too, but his game otherwise was pretty poor.

Why did we revert to a Deans style kick everything for the English game after doing it differently in the RC? I would hate to see that sort of aimless play for the Italy game.

I would most certainly have Dennis on the bench instead of Timani. At least that would give us another lineout option, but his form for Uni was good at the end of the year and I live in hope that he can reproduce a little of that at this level. He could not be as ineffectual as Sita in any case.

I think Nic White deserves to start but with clear instructions about his kicking game; when to kick and how much ground to go for. Remember that his kicking game in the Super comp was amongst the best and was a reason he got the Wallabies callup. Definitely Phipps on the bench in favour of Genia who needs a rest.

Moore and Hooper need a rest as well. TPN on the bench (is he fit?) as cover for Fa'ainga and time for Gill to have a run. I would like to see Horwill given a rest but there doesn't seem to be a fit and healthy alternative atm. I see Dennis at 8 rather than at lock, but he should cover both on the bench. Like you, I don't see any future for Sita in the Wallabies.

Foley and Lealiifano should get a run in the backline, maybe Christian at 10 and Foley on the bench to give Quade a rest as well. Tomane to start at 11.

 

[Brumby Runner]

All the players kicking like that makes me think it was part of the plan. We saw against South Africa in Cape Town that McKenzie's idea of a percentage game is to kick it every time you have it, maybe it was just more of the same?

It seemed to me that there might have been an instruction at half time when we were ahead to keep the ball in the English half, and that would account for the amount of kicking we saw in the second stanza. If so, I think it was definitely the wrong instruction.

 

[Braveheart81]

It seems to me that our players struggle to maintain good rugby decision making within a chosen game plan.

The game plan might have changed a bit at half time because England's attack looked terrible and we had a lead so there was an instruction to play the ball at their end of the field but our execution of this was atrocious.

We can kick the ball more often without our kicking game becoming aimless and detrimental to our cause.

Instead what we see is just kicking the ball downfield with no real plan and all of a sudden England's attacking game starts to improve because they receive the ball in lots of space with our defence in no man's land.

 

[en_force_er]

It seemed to me that there might have been an instruction at half time when we were ahead to keep the ball in the English half, and that would account for the amount of kicking we saw in the second stanza. If so, I think it was definitely the wrong instruction.

It's the right instruction. The execution is what was wrong sadly.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

Said it before, and likely to rinse and repeat.

In this country we have a game using an oval football where the prime means of advancing the ball is by kicking it. No other country has that advantage.

In some misguided spirit of "fair play", it would appear that we have deliberately chosen not to take advantage of that lead we have over our opponents. Somehow we seem to think of the AFL as such a competitor in the crowded Aussie Sporting environment that we MUST not have any contact with them at all.

The Sherrin AFL ball is significantly smaller, and a slightly different shape, but as Scotty says in Star Trek, "Ye canna change the laws of Physics". The mechanics and kicking principles should be the same.

Why do we not employ some AFL blokes to run kicking clinics for our designated kickers?

There should be consultants employed at Junior Levels or Regional Kicking Development Officers appointed to ensure that the up and coming are taught properly and efficiently. The Skype or ad hoc approach is clearly not working.

We need some structure and discipline in this important aspect of the game. Without this approach, we may be waiting another 50 years for a Noddy Lynagh or Campo to appear on the scene by magic as the product of random development.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

I just don't get the idea to change plans at half time to "protect the lead".

If we can get a lead at Oranges by executing a game plan, then if we keep executing that theoretically we will have twice the lead when Sir blows full time.

You protect a lead in the last minute or two of a match, not the last 40 minutes. If it is working to keep you in front, then keep doing it. Why go all negative just because you get your nose in front?

 

[Braveheart81]

I just don't get the idea to change plans at half time to "protect the lead".

I don't think the tactic was about protecting the lead so much as their defence is good and their attack is bad so if we kick for territory, we should be able to win the ball back in a much better attacking position.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

But we were able to get to a good attacking position by means other than kicking it for territorial advantage for 40 minutes. Rinse and repeat.

 

[GaffaCHinO]

So is Fardy gone from the tour? Will we see Higgers on a plane soon?

 

[Braveheart81]

So is Fardy gone from the tour? Will we see Higgers on a plane soon?

He has concussion so depending on how he responds this week, he may not even miss a game.

Personally I think he should sit out this week as a precaution regardless of how he responds given we have plenty of players on tour who should get a go.

 

[Richo]

In this country we have a game using an oval football where the prime means of advancing the ball is by kicking it. No other country has that advantage.

Foley Folau (typo) is not a swift or particularly good tactical kicker of the ball, but that AFL style punt of his gets a lot of distance. When the objective is largely to hoof it over the sideline from back within the 22, even Folau's limited kicking game has obviously benefited from AFL training.

 

[Brumby Runner]

It's the right instruction. The execution is what was wrong sadly.

If the players demonstrate time after time (as the Wallabies have done with their very poor kick chasing) then it's the wrong plan.